The S26 does indeed appear to be a development not only of the Crusader itself but also the philosophy behind the model range. The S26 was split into Military-spec (with standard RR Eagle 350 / RTX 14615) and Civilian spec (with standard Cummins 350 / RTX 14615). RTX 11609 was optional. Both those were further divided into three other catergories: Lightweight, Mediumweight and Heavyweight. All sorts of alternative engines, gearboxes and rear axles were offered, DEPENDING on the weight category. So in theory you could have a Cummins / Fuller / Rockwell in the Mediumweight category but you couldn’t (as far as I know) have a Rockwell rear end on a Heavyweight. Other gearboxes offered included Allison, ZF Transmatic, Fuller 10-sp. Other rear-ends included SOMA, Scammell, Rockwell. Other engines included Cummins NTE 400 for Heavyweights. Bit of a minefield!
Define heavy weight, Rockwell (now Meritor and owned by Cummins) made 44,000lb single reduction tandem drive that were good for at least 90 tonne and current 46,000lb for better than 120 tonne.
Double reduction seems to be mandatory above 200 tonne.
Yes! According to Scammell’s 1985 S26 brochure the weight categories are described as follows:
Lightweight: rated up to 38t GCW
Mediumweight: rated up to 65t GCW
Heavyweight: rated up to 300t GCW
I’m actually interested in working out which S26 variant / option would make an even better long-haul ‘overlander’ than Bob Poggiani’s ‘Scud’ cited earlier in the thread.
As far as I can make out from reading S26 material in brochures, books and online, is that in theory, I could have gone to Scammell in 1988 and asked for a Middle-East spec LHD 6x4 S26 with a SWB Mediumweight chassis and either a NTE 350 + Fuller RTX 11609 or NTE 400 + Fuller RTX 14615 - the jury is still out whether I could have the 9-sp with the 400 (ERF offered it). You could have a Rockwell rear-end with the Mediumweight. The axles are the most elusive element, the choice appearing to be Scammell, SOMA and Rockwell, but which variants could have what is not yet known to me.
I’ve now found out behind the scenes that the Scud was indeed an NTE 350 that had been tweaked to 400+.
I’d guess that heavy up to 300t would be using the same/similar Scammell type axle set up as the Contractor or Commander ?.
Yes, Scammell evolution in progress.
To add according to CM archive article the medium weight S26 had Rockwell or Soma bogies.
The heavyweight had Scammell bogies and only Cummins engine option ?.
The video sounds to my ears like Rolls engine and what looks suspiciously like a Scammell bogie.
Surely 300t rating would have required the Contractor’s 40t bogie or they downgraded the specification for the rating ?.Strange.
I guess this might be the medium weight S26 Ro v the Contractor’s heavier 40t rear bogie ?.So still Scammell type for medium ?.
The hubs on it look familiar with our special types Scammell bogie shown here ?.
That was written by a probably harrassed reporter trying to cram hundreds of facts into a narrow column for CM during the Press day before the motor show opened. Those reports often contain minor errors. For example he doesn’t really explain which weight categories had which engines, gearboxes and axles in enough detail to make real sense. And don’t forget that he was reporting on what was there at the show, which was civilian hardware. I’ve already explained that the military version differed from the civvy one.
And why would they use the Contractor’s bogie if they’ve just developed a new one? You’re comparing apples with pears again.
That bogie doesn’t look like a normal on-road double-drive to me CF. Also, that’s a much older Contractor.
The S26 mediumweight was just like any other regular 6x4 but with sturdy Scammell build quality.
Agree that the 2nd picture shows what I would assume is extreme angles of articulation.
Can @carryfast give a link to where it is from please? Looks like an interesting vehicle.
Probably a Scammell heavyweight rear-end, I’d say. And what sounds like a Rolls to your ears happens to be a Cummins NTE 350 uprated to 400 in that s26.
Don’t be tempted to conflate the S26 with the Contractor, which pre-dates it by nearly 20 years. The bonnetted sister to the S26 was the S24 with which it shared almost identical drivelines.
CF, it would be disingenuous of me to suggest that I know anything about off-road battlefied Scammells. I have only ever been interested in the general haulage 6x4s. The Crusader, which as a sharp-end tank transporter or heavy-haulage tractor was a heavyweight with a RR Eagle 305 and 15-sp Fuller. The general haulage version, which the army also used for non-battlefield duties, had a 9-sp Fuller (and possibly the Eagle 280 that went into the 4x2 version). In the army’s case these tended to be day-cabbed. In civvy-street you could get it with a sleeper cab in LHD or RHD. Some went to Russia and Portugal for example.
The S26 follows a similar pattern, but takes the difference a stage further in that the civvy version had Cummins 350 plus 9-sp Fuller whereas the battlefield version had RR 350 plus 15-sp Fuller. Heavy-haulage contractors could order combinations of these. And as CM suggested, the mediumweight, at least could have Rockwell or SOMA back axles.
Hope that helps.
To add it’s the question of the definition of ‘heavyweight’ ‘300t’ rated S26 or even S24 ?.As opposed to the older Contractor’s drive line ?.
The hubs in the S26 video example look relatively lighter duty, but still Scammell type, it doesn’t look like it’s designed to haul the type of ‘weights’ which the Contractor was ?.So medium duty = the Crusader type sector ?.
I think it’s more about weight capacity and torque delivery capacity, rather than the articulation requirement of the bogie in that regard.
From the article it would seem that the S26 was a generic product range covering all market sectors previously served by the Routeman etc rigids, Crusader and up to Contractor heavy haul.
The details of the exact specifications seem to be a mystery.
Is the ballast tractor S26 in the video originally the ‘Scud’ which you were referring to previously ? I was surprised that engine note is a Cummins not a Rolls.
It looks like a lighter duty bogie than that of the older Contractor’s for a 300t rating ?.The hubs at least seeming to match lighter duty types.
It’s part of the chassis test for the Pathfinder fire truck which was my introduction to the industry.It’s a photo from the sales brochure which we were all given at induction to the firm and which I’ve kept.By all accounts it contained a lot of Scammell component input like other lesser types we made like the Nubian 2.
Naturally. You introduced the articulation question. It’s a separate issue.
If you read up the page, it states I think several times that the Cummins NTE 350 was the standard engine in civilian S24s and S26s. The army used RR.
No, the Portuguese-registered unit with Tony Morgan livery is not the Scud. It is much the same spec, as it does indeed appear to be a mediumweight, and it does indeed have the NTE 350 and SOMA rear end (and LHD).
Reading the Facebook comments on the scud, apparently it ended up doing internal work in Doha and some comments suggested it was maybe on its way back to the UK, but the posts were a few years old…